PMCC PMCC

Conseils de recherche
Les critères de recherche

Avancée
Résultats 1-25 (2924)
 

Notices sélectionnées (0)
Aucune

Sélectionner un filtre

Revues
Année de publication
plus »
jtitle_s:("anesti Prog")
1.  Continuing Education Program 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):84.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.84
PMCID: PMC4062971
2.  JDSA JOURNAL ABSTRACTS 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):85-87.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.85
PMCID: PMC4068086
3.  Appropriate Head Position for Nasotracheal Intubation by Using Lightwand Device (Trachlight) 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):47-52.
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the head position and the subsequent ease of nasotracheal intubation by using the lightwand device Trachlight (TL). Patients requiring nasotracheal intubation were subdivided into 3 groups according to the intubated head position (group S: sniffing position; group E: extension position; and group N: neutral position). The number of attempts, the total intubation time, and the failures of the TL intubation were recorded. Intubation difficulty by means of TL was assessed by the ordinal 6-point scale. Of the 300 patients enrolled in the study, TL intubation was successful in 91.3% of them. There was no significant difference in the success rate of the first attempt between the groups. No correlation between the ordinal scale and the head position was observed. The total intubation time and the ratio of “unsuccessful” cases were not significantly different among the 3 groups. TL is an effective alternative for patients who require nasotracheal intubation. Our study did not determine the most favorable head position for nasotracheal intubation with the TL, so we recommend that nasotracheal intubation with TL be started with the head in the neutral position and then changed to a more appropriate position, if necessary, on an individual basis.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.47
PMCID: PMC4068087  PMID: 24932977
Nasotracheal intubation; Lightwand device (Trachlight); Appropriate head position.
4.  Do Patients Fear Undergoing General Anesthesia for Oral Surgery? 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):69-72.
Many patients undergoing major surgery have more fear of the general anesthesia than the procedure. This appears to be reversed with oral surgery. Therefore, patients need to be as well informed about this aspect as the surgical operation.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.69
PMCID: PMC4068088  PMID: 24932980
5.  Lidocaine Concentration in Mandibular Bone After Subperiosteal Infiltration Anesthesia Decreases With Elevation of Periosteal Flap and Irrigation With Saline 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):53-62.
It has been reported that the action of infiltration anesthesia on the jawbone is attenuated significantly by elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation in clinical studies; however, the reason is unclear. Therefore, the lidocaine concentration in mandibular bone after subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia was measured under several surgical conditions. The subjects were 48 rabbits. Infiltration anesthesia by 0.5 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1 : 80,000 epinephrine (adrenaline) was injected into the right mandibular angle and left mandibular body, respectively. Under several surgical conditions (presence or absence of periosteal flap, and presence or absence of saline irrigation), both mandibular bone samples were removed at a fixed time after subperiosteal infiltration anesthesia. The lidocaine concentration in each mandibular bone sample was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. As a result, elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation significantly decreased the lidocaine concentration in the mandibular bone. It is suggested that the anesthetic in the bone was washed out by saline irrigation. Therefore, supplemental conduction and/or general anesthesia should be utilized for long operations that include elevation of the periosteal flap with saline irrigation.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.53
PMCID: PMC4068089  PMID: 24932978
Periosteal flap; Lidocaine concentration; Jawbone; Infiltration anesthesia.
6.  Essentials of Airway Management, Oxygenation, and Ventilation: Part 1: Basic Equipment and Devices 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):78-83.
Offices and outpatient dental facilities must be properly equipped with devices for airway management, oxygenation, and ventilation. Optimizing patient safety using crisis resource management (CRM) involves the entire dental office team being familiar with airway rescue equipment. Basic equipment for oxygenation, ventilation, and airway management is mandated in the majority of US dental offices per state regulations. The immediate availability of this equipment is especially important during the administration of sedation and anesthesia as well as the treatment of medical urgencies/emergencies. This article reviews basic equipment and devices essential in any dental practice whether providing local anesthesia alone or in combination with procedural sedation. Part 2 of this series will address advanced airway devices, including supraglottic airways and armamentarium for tracheal intubation and invasive airway procedures.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.78
PMCID: PMC4068090  PMID: 24932982
Airway management; Oxygenation; Ventilation; Equipment; Devices
7.  Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 0.5 M Mannitol Plus 36.8 mg of Lidocaine With 18.4 μg Epinephrine in Maxillary Infiltration: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind Study 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):63-68.
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of lidocaine with epinephrine compared to lidocaine with epinephrine plus 0.5 M mannitol in maxillary lateral incisor infiltrations. Forty-one subjects randomly received 2 maxillary lateral infiltrations consisting of a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (control solution) and a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. The maxillary lateral incisor was blindly electric pulp–tested in 2-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (a reading of 80) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all pulpal anesthesia readings (at output of 80) over the 60-minute test period. Pain during solution deposition and postoperative pain were also measured. The results demonstrated that a 2.90-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine (1.84 mL) plus 0.5 M mannitol (1.06 mL) was not statistically significantly superior to a 1.84-mL solution of 36.8 mg lidocaine with 18.4 μg epinephrine. The pain of solution deposition was lower with the lidocaine/mannitol formulation. Postoperative pain was not statistically significantly different between the lidocaine/mannitol formulation and the lidocaine formulation without mannitol. We concluded that adding 0.5 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was not significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol in the maxillary lateral incisor.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.63
PMCID: PMC4068091  PMID: 24932979
; Anesthesia; Mannitol; Lidocaine; Infiltration; Maxillary.
8.  When Can a Normal Dose Be an Overdose? Who Is at Risk? 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):45-46.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.45
PMCID: PMC4068092  PMID: 24932976
9.  Cerebrovascular Accident Under Anesthesia During Dental Surgery 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(2):73-77.
Stroke, or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), is a medical emergency that may lead to permanent neurological damage, complications, and death. The rapid loss of brain function due to disruption of the blood supply to the brain is caused by blockage (thrombosis, arterial embolism) or hemorrhage. The incidence of CVA during anesthesia for noncardiac nonvascular surgery is as high as 1% depending on risk factors. Comprehensive preoperative assessment and good perioperative management may prevent a CVA. However, should an ischemic event occur, appropriate and rapid management is necessary to minimize the deleterious effects caused to the patient. This case report describes a patient who had an ischemic CVA while under general anesthesia for dental alveolar surgery and discusses the anesthesia management.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.2.73
PMCID: PMC4068093  PMID: 24932981
General anesthesia; Cerebrovascular event; Complication; Dentistry.
10.  JSDA JOURNAL ABSTRACTS 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):36-40.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.36
PMCID: PMC3975614
11.  Multiple Risks for Patients Using the Transdermal Fentanyl Patch 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):1-2.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.1
PMCID: PMC3975607  PMID: 24697818
12.  Use of Local Anesthesia During Dental Rehabilitation With General Anesthesia: A Survey of Dentist Anesthesiologists 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):11-17.
The purpose of this study was to document current practices of dentist anesthesiologists who are members of the American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists regarding the supplemental use of local anesthesia for children undergoing dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia. A survey was administered via e-mail to the membership of the American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists to document the use of local anesthetic during dental rehabilitations under general anesthesia and the rationale for its use. Seventy-seven (42.1%) of the 183 members responded to this survey. The majority of dentist anesthesiologists prefer use of local anesthetic during general anesthesia for dental rehabilitation almost always or sometimes (90%, 63/70) and 40% (28/70) prefer its use with rare exception. For dentist anesthesiologists who prefer the administration of local anesthesia almost always, they listed the following factors as very important: “stabilization of vital signs/decreased depth of general anesthesia” (92.9%, 26/28) and “improved patient recovery” (82.1%, 23/28). There was a significant association between the type of practice and who determines whether or not local anesthesia is administered during cases. The majority of respondents favor the use of local anesthesia during dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.11
PMCID: PMC3975608  PMID: 24697820
Local anesthesia; Hospital dentistry; General anesthesia; Restorative dentistry
13.  Deliberate Hypotensive Anesthesia With the Rapidly Acting, Vascular-Selective, L-Type Calcium Channel Antagonist—Clevidipine: A Case Report 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):18-20.
Deliberate hypotension is an important technique for use in select anesthetics for procedures such as orthognathic surgery, specifically LeFort I maxillary osteotomy. We present a case report of an anesthetic involving deliberate hypotension for a 17-year-old female patient who presented for a LeFort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split of the mandible, and a genioplasty in order to correct a skeletal class III malocclusion. After reaching a steady-state general anesthetic, deliberate hypotension was induced solely with a bolus and subsequent continuous infusion of the ultrashort acting calcium channel blocker, clevidipine. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative course and anesthetic management are discussed.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.18
PMCID: PMC3975609  PMID: 24697821
Deliberate hypotension; Bolus infusion; Dental anesthesiology; Calcium channel antagonist; Orthognathic surgery; General anesthesia; Narcotics; Hemodynamics; IV agents; Hemostasis; Pain control; Post-operative pain management; PONV; Nasotracheal intubation; Anti-emetic prophylaxis; Maxillomandibular fixation
14.  Factors Involved In Dental Surgery Fires: A Review of the Literature 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):21-25.
Surgical fires are well-characterized, readily preventable, potentially devastating operating room catastrophes that continue to occur from 20 to 100 times per year or, by one estimate, up to 600 times per year in US operating rooms, sometimes with fatal results. The most significant risk factors for surgical fires involve (a) the use of an ignition source, such as laser or electrocautery equipment, in or around an oxygen-enriched environment in the head, neck, and upper torso area and (b) the concurrent delivery of supplemental oxygen, especially via nasal cannula. Nonetheless, while these 2 conditions occur very commonly in dental surgery, especially in pediatric dental surgery where sedation and anesthesia are regularly indicated, there is a general absence of documented dental surgical fires in the literature. Barring the possibility of underreporting for fear of litigation, this may suggest that there is another mechanism or mechanisms present in dental or pediatric dental surgery that mitigates this worst-case risk of surgical fires. Some possible explanations for this include: greater fire safety awareness by dental practitioners, incidental ventilation of oxygen-enriched environments in patient oral cavities due to breathing, or suction used by dental practitioners during procedures. This review of the literature provides a background to suggest that the practice of using intraoral suction in conjunction with the use of supplemental oxygen during dental procedures may alter the conditions needed for the initiation of intraoral fires. To date, there appear to be no published studies describing the ability of intraoral suctioning devices to alter the ambient oxygen concentration in an intraoral environment. In vivo models that would allow examination of intraoral suction on the ambient oxygen concentration in a simulated intraoral environment may then provide a valuable foundation for evaluating the safety of current clinical dental surgical practices, particularly in regard to the treatment of children.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.21
PMCID: PMC3975610  PMID: 24697822
Surgical fire; Operating room; Dentistry; Dental treatment; Airway fire
15.  Adverse Drug Reactions in Dental Practice 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):26-34.
Adverse reactions may occur with any of the medications prescribed or administered in dental practice. Most of these reactions are somewhat predictable based on the pharmacodynamic properties of the drug. Others, such as allergic and pseudoallergic reactions, are less common and unrelated to normal drug action. This article will review the most common adverse reactions that are unrelated to drug allergy.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.26
PMCID: PMC3975611  PMID: 24697823
Adverse drug reactions; Drug side effects; Dentistry
16.  Dexmedetomidine Sedation With and Without Midazolam for Third Molar Surgery 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):3-10.
Twenty-four patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Intraoperatively, one group received a continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine alone, whereas the other received a continuous dexmedetomidine infusion plus a small dose of midazolam. Early measurements of patient anxiety and psychomotor performance were lower in patients who had received midazolam. This difference was not seen later in the appointment. An amnesic effect was observed in those patients who received midazolam. This effect, however, did not translate into increased patient satisfaction in the group receiving midazolam. Our findings suggest a prolonged discharge time for patients who had been given midazolam that may be clinically significant. Overall, dexmedetomidine showed an unpredictable sedative response and may be less practical than more common alternatives for oral surgery procedures.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.3
PMCID: PMC3975612  PMID: 24697819
Dexmedetomidine; Anesthesiology; Oral surgery; Sedation; Third molars
17.  Continuing Education Program 
Anesthesia Progress  2014;61(1):35.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-61.1.35
PMCID: PMC3975613
18.  New Evidence of Enhanced Safety of Nitrous Oxide in General Anesthesia 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):143-144.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.143
PMCID: PMC3891454  PMID: 24423416
19.  Anesthetic Efficacy of a Combination of 0.9 M Mannitol Plus 68.8 mg of Lidocaine With 50 μg Epinephrine in Inferior Alveolar Nerve Blocks: A Prospective Randomized, Single Blind Study 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):145-152.
The purpose of this prospective randomized, single blind study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of 68.8 mg of lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine compared to 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol in inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) blocks. Forty subjects randomly received 2 IAN blocks consisting of a 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine and a 5-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine (1.72 mL) plus 0.9 M mannitol (3.28 mL) in 2 separate appointments spaced at least 1 week apart. Mandibular anterior and posterior teeth were blindly electric pulp tested at 4-minute cycles for 60 minutes postinjection. No response from the subject to the maximum output (80 reading) of the pulp tester was used as the criterion for pulpal anesthesia. Total percent pulpal anesthesia was defined as the total of all the times of pulpal anesthesia (80 readings), for each tooth, over the 60 minutes. One hundred percent of the subjects had profound lip numbness with both inferior alveolar nerve blocks. The results demonstrated that the 5 mL-formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine plus 0.9 M mannitol was significantly better than the 1.72-mL formulation of 68.8 mg lidocaine with 50 μg epinephrine for all teeth, except the lateral incisor. We concluded that adding 0.9 M mannitol to a lidocaine with epinephrine formulation was significantly more effective in achieving a greater percentage of total pulpal anesthesia (as defined in this study) than a lidocaine formulation without mannitol. However, the 0.9 M mannitol/lidocaine formulation would not provide 100% pulpal anesthesia for all the mandibular teeth.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.145
PMCID: PMC3891455  PMID: 24423417
Inferior alveolar nerve block; Lidocaine; Mannitol
20.  Risk Factors With Intravenous Sedation for Patients With Disabilities 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):153-161.
The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with low peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and delayed recovery of dental patients with disabilities after intravenous sedation. A total of 1213 patients with disabilities were retrospectively investigated with respect to demographic parameters and sedation conditions. Multivariate logistic analyses were conducted for patients with an SpO2 <90% and a recovery period of >60 minutes to identify the risk factors for poor sedation conditions. A significant odds ratio related to decreased SpO2 was observed for age, sex, midazolam and propofol levels, concurrent use of nitrous oxide, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and mental retardation. The most problematic patients were those diagnosed with Down syndrome (odds ratio, 3.003–7.978; 95% confidence interval; P < .001). Decision tree analysis showed an increased risk of decreased SpO2 in males with Down syndrome or after administration of >0.493 mg/kg propofol in combination with midazolam. An increased risk of delayed awakening was seen in patients aged less than 21 years and in males administered >0.032 mg/kg of midazolam. Intravenous sedation for dental patients with disabilities, particularly those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, or mental retardation, increases the risk of decreased SpO2. In addition, delayed recovery is expected after midazolam administration.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.153
PMCID: PMC3891456  PMID: 24423418
Dental sedation; Low peripheral oxygen saturation; Delayed recovery
21.  A Comparison of Fospropofol to Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Outpatient Dental Procedures 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):162-177.
Moderate intravenous (IV) sedation combined with local anesthesia is common for outpatient oral surgery procedures. An ideal sedative agent must be safe and well tolerated by patients and practitioners. This study evaluated fospropofol, a relatively new sedative/hypnotic, in comparison to midazolam, a commonly used benzodiazepine, for IV moderate sedation during oral and maxillofacial surgery. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the fospropofol or the midazolam group. Each participant received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl prior to administration of the selected sedative. Those in the fospropofol group received an initial dose of 6.5 mg/kg, with 1.6 mg/kg supplemental doses as needed. Those in the midazolam group received initial doses of 0.05 mg/kg, followed by 0.02 mg/kg supplemental doses. The quality of sedation in each patient was evaluated with regard to (a) onset of sedation, maintenance, and recovery profile; (b) patient and surgeon satisfaction; and (c) hemodynamic stability and adverse effects. The fospropofol group demonstrated shorter physical recovery times than midazolam patients, taking a mean of 11.6 minutes versus 18.4 minutes for physical recovery (P = .007). Cognitive recovery comparison did not find any difference with a mean of 7.5 minutes versus 8.8 minutes between the 2 drug groups (P = .123). The fospropofol group had a higher rate of local anesthetic injection recall (90.5 vs 44.4%, P = .004). Other parameters of recall were comparable. Two adverse effects demonstrated significance, with more patients in the midazolam group experiencing tachycardia (48.2 vs 9.4%, P = .001), and more patients in the fospropofol group experiencing perineal discomfort (40.6 vs 0, P < .001). No significant difference was found in any other measures of sedation safety, maintenance, or satisfaction. Fospropofol, when administered intravenously by a dentist anesthesiologist at the indicated dose in this study, appears to be a safe, well-tolerated alternative to midazolam for intravenous moderate sedation during minor oral surgery procedures.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.162
PMCID: PMC3891457  PMID: 24423419
Fospropofol; Midazolam; Moderate sedation; Outpatient surgery; IV conscious sedation; Benzodiazepine; Propofol
22.  Three Newly Approved Analgesics: An Update 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):178-187.
Since 2008, three new analgesic entities, tapentadol immediate release (Nucynta) diclofenac potassium soft gelatin capsules (Zipsor), and bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension (EXPAREL) were granted US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to treat acute pain. Tapentadol immediate-release is a both a mu-opioid agonist and a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, and is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. Diclofenac potassium soft gelatin capsules are a novel formulation of diclofenac potassium, which is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and its putative mechanism of action is through inhibition of cyclooxygenase enzymes. This novel formulation of diclofenac allows for improved absorption at lower doses. Liposomal bupivacaine is a new formulation of bupivacaine intended for single-dose infiltration at the surgical site for postoperative analgesia. Bupivacaine is slowly released from this liposomal vehicle and can provide prolonged analgesia at the surgical site. By utilizing NSAIDs and local anesthetics to decrease the transmission of afferent pain signals, less opioid analgesics are needed to achieve analgesia. Since drug-related adverse events are frequently dose related, lower doses from different drug classes may be employed to reduce the incidence of adverse effects, while producing synergistic analgesia as part of a multimodal analgesic approach to acute pain.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.178
PMCID: PMC3891458  PMID: 24423420
Liposomal bupivacaine; Tapentadol; Diclofenac potassium soft gelatin capsules; Analgesics
23.  Drug Allergies and Implications for Dental Practice 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):188-197.
Adverse reactions to medications prescribed or administered in dental practice can be worrying. Most of these reactions are somewhat predictable based on the pharmacodynamic properties of the drug. Others, such as allergic and pseudoallergic reactions, are generally unpredictable and unrelated to normal drug action. This article will review immune and nonimmune-mediated mechanisms that account for allergic and related reactions to the particular drug classes commonly used in dentistry. The appropriate management of these reactions will also be addressed.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.188
PMCID: PMC3891459  PMID: 24423421
Drug allergy; Drug side effects; Dentistry
24.  Continuing Education Program 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):198.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.198
PMCID: PMC3891460
25.  JDSA Journal Abstracts 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):199-212.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.199
PMCID: PMC3891461

Résultats 1-25 (2924)